[1] The burden of proof, criteria for determination, and degree of proof as to the causal relationship between the occupational accident and the accident

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the case constitutes an occupational accident in the case where the asbestos known as a carcinant and the work environment exposed to free acid were long-term and died as a carcinum

[1] The occupational accident under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee's occupational accident while performing his/her duties, so there is a proximate causal relation between the employee's occupational accident and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the employee's occupational accident should be proved by the party asserting it. However, the existence of a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident should be determined on the basis of the employee's health and physical condition, not by the average person, but by the average person. In addition, the degree of proof of the causal relation should not be proved clearly in medical and natural science, and it is proved that there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the deceased's death constitutes an occupational accident on the ground that even if the medical route caused by the deceased's death was not accurately revealed in the case where the asbestos known as a cancer substance and the waste cancer caused by the death of the deceased who had been exposed for a long time to harmful substances related to the death of the deceased, since it is reasonable to conclude that the deceased's death constitutes an occupational accident on the ground that the deceased's death was found to have caused the pulmonary function of the deceased, which became worse because the pulmonary function of the deceased who had been exposed to the harmful substances related to the death of the deceased was deteriorated for an excessive time, and that the pulmonary cancer caused the death of the deceased was

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du10103 delivered on January 26, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 379) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5501 Delivered on November 14, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2367) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12530 Delivered on April 9, 2004

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daejeon High Court Decision 2004Nu1115 delivered on June 16, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. "Occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee's occupational accident while performing his/her duties, and there is a proximate causal relation between the employee's occupational accident and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the employee's occupational accident should be proved by the claimant. However, the existence of a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident should be determined on the basis of the worker's health and physical condition, not by the average person, but by the average person. In addition, the degree of proof of causal relation should not be proved clearly in medical and natural science, and it is proved that there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident in consideration of all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du10103, Jan. 26, 199).

2. Based on the evidence of the court below, the deceased was employed on August 1, 191 (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1 company") and had been employed for each of the work processes until July 1997, which was 40 or more times before the death of non-party 1 company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1 company"). The court below determined that the non-party 1 company's main contents were no longer than the 5-year work environment after the death of non-party 1 company, which had been exposed to the 7-year work environment after the death of non-party 1, which had been exposed to the 7-year work environment after the death of non-party 1, which could have been found during the process of treatment of non-party 1's death, and that the 0-year work environment was no longer likely to have been discovered during the process of treatment of non-party 1's death, and that the 0-year work environment was no longer widely known during the process of treatment of non-party 1's death.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment below's finding of facts and judgment as just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to causation in occupational accidents, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)